Susanta Kumar Roy vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 7697 Cal

 21.11.2022
Sl. No.7(DL)
    srm
                                W.P.A. No. 23598 of 2022

                                  Susanta Kumar Roy

                                         Versus

                             The State of West Bengal & Ors.



                     Mr. Kamalesh Bhattacharya,
                     Mr. Surendra Kumar Sharma
                                                      ....for the Petitioner.

                     Mr. Pinaki Dhole,
                     Ms. Ananya Neogi
                                               ...for the State-respondents.

Affidavit-of-service is taken on record.

The petitioner prays for pension and other

retirement benefits upon condonation of the shortfall in

service. He prays that the authorities deliberately refused

to grant the appointment at the time when the petitioner

had been selected and hence he was not at fault. Had the

appointment been made upon conclusion of the

recruitment process, the petitioner would have worked for

more than 15 years.

It is the contention of the petitioner that the

selection process was completed in 1986, but the authority

failed to implement the said selection process.

Thereafter, several litigations continued before this

Court at the instance of other selected candidates. Finally,

the authorities were directed by a Division Bench to take

steps for appointment of the empanelled candidates. The

petitioner was one of such empanelled candidate.

Reliance has been placed on the Division Bench

judgment of this Court dated January 17, 2007.

Aggrieved, the State of West Bengal preferred a

Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court,

which was dismissed.

The appointment letters were issued. The

petitioner's appointment letter is dated September 26, 2008.

The petitioner joined the post on January 21, 2009, after

having executed an agreement and upon being satisfied

with the terms and conditions thereof.

It also appears that the Division Bench had

specifically observed that it would not be proper for the

Court to fix the cut off date from August 13, 1998. It was

observed that interest of justice would be sub-served if the

persons who could not be appointed due to the delay by

the State-respondents, were granted liberty to pray for

appropriate compensation by approaching the civil court.

The Division Bench had directed the State to

consider the case of all the empanelled candidates by

applying the date of judgment, that is January 17, 2007 as a

cut off date instead of any prior date. The State was also

directed to grant the appointments as early as possible

especially in cases of those persons who had 5 years or less

of service life.

Mr. Bhattacharya, learned Advocate appearing on

behalf of the petitioner submits that order of the Division

Bench will not affect the rights of the petitioner.

The specific contention of the State-respondents

before the Division Bench was that there were many

candidates who would not complete even 5 years of

service and they would not be entitled any post retirement

benefits.

Analysing the entire issue, the Division Bench

decided that the cut off date for the appointment arising

out of the selection process of 1986 initiated by the State of

West Bengal to fill up the post of 'Gram Shevak' would be

January 17, 2007. The cases of those candidates, who had 5

years or less tenure, should be given priority.

It appears that agreements were also executed by

the said candidates when they joined their duties. The

order was in respect of all empanelled candidates.

Thus, Mr. Dhole, learned Advocate appearing on

behalf of the State-respondents submits that the question of

condonation of shortfall of more than four years for

eligibility to be granted pension, cannot be allowed in view

of the order of the Division Bench and the agreement

signed by the petitioner.

The writ petition is disposed of with a direction

upon the Joint Secretary to the Government of West

Bengal, Department of Panchayats and Rural

Development, to treat the writ petition as a representation

of the petitioner and decide the question of condonation of

the shortfall in his pensionable service, under the facts and

circumstances narrated hereinabove. The petitioner will be

entitled to be represented by a learned Advocate before the

authority.

Upon completion of the hearing, a reasoned order

shall be passed and communicated within a period of eight

weeks from the date of communication of this orders.

A copy of this writ petition along with a server copy

of this order be served upon the authority.

The writ petition is, thus, disposed of.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Parties are to act on the basis of the server copy of

this order.

(Shampa Sarkar, J.)